Google must erase “inadequate” links, court says

European Union high court favors "right to be forgotten."

The European Union’s highest court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), ruled on Tuesday that Internet search engines like Google must erase links related to webpages in certain cases where the information contained is deemed “inadequate” or “irrelevant,” according to a press release issued by the ECJ.

In the matter before the Luxembourg-based ECJ, an attorney named Mario Costeja González previously filed a complaint with the Spanish Data Protection Agency claiming that his privacy rights had been violated. Specifically, Gonzalez was displeased that entering his name in Google’s search engine drew results including a legal notice dating back to a 1998 story on his forced property sale to satisfy mounting personal debt.

After both the publication in question and Google refused to take down the information, González brought a claim alleging that his privacy rights were being violated according to the European Commission's Directive on Data Protection, which guarantees a right to be forgotten in cases where information is incomplete or inaccurate.

While this decision may provide some reassurance for individuals to protect their personal freedoms, individuals should take some caution about the difficulty in implementing such a scheme. "It looks difficult to enforce on a large scale and may be very disruptive for the functioning of search engines going forward," Luca Schiovani, from analyst research center Ovum, told Ars.

We've previously written about other overseas individuals who have unsuccessfully tried to remove Google search results, like the owner of an oceanfront vacation spot called "Camping Alfaques" in southern Spain. That individual was a child in 1978 when a tanker truck exploded into a fireball on the road just beyond the site. Tons of fuel ignited, immediately turning 200 campers to ash and badly burning several hundred more. In that case, the owner of the site was unable to have gruesome pictures of charred bodies purged from the search results for the campsite.

“Most surprising is that the court has come down firmly in favor of a ‘right to be forgotten,'” Richard Cumbley, an attorney with the London-based firm Linklaters, told The New York Times. Discussing González’s case, Cumbley continued, “Given that the EU has spent two years debating this right as part of the reform of EU privacy legislation, it is ironic that the ECJ has found it already exists in such a striking manner.”

"This is a disappointing ruling for search engines and online publishers in general," a Google spokesman told Ars.

Honest question, why was the decision made to file a complaint against Google instead of going to the website that published the story that sparked this whole thing? It's not like they were turning up these results in prejudice.

Honest question, why was the decision made to file a complaint against Google instead of going to the website that published the story that sparked this whole thing? It's not like they were turning up these results in prejudice.

Google has more money that whatever local paper or government agency posted the original article, might as well go for the big money while you're at it

This is a horrible ruling and will just create a legal prescedent to censor anything some will find offensive or "irrelevant", way to go EU, you must love your censorship

All joking aside, anyone want to bet this is a first step in "purifying" the internet by later declaring unilaterally all porn and adult content irrelevant?

Would not surprise me one bit, we'll know for sure, depends on how long before someone tries to shut down 4Chan based on some nebulous criteria, if that works, it will be open season on all other "questionable" sites

I think the only logical conclusion at this point is for Google to stop servicing Europe. I mean, irrelevant and inadequate are both subjective measurements - neither of which I would even personally apply to the complaint filed in the first place. Moreover, why would Google even be responsible for subjectively assessing every site they index?

Honest question, why was the decision made to file a complaint against Google instead of going to the website that published the story that sparked this whole thing? It's not like they were turning up these results in prejudice.

The news organization was sued as well, but the court ruled the information to have been accurate at the time it was published, so it was allowed to remain. For some reason, the court still finds fault with Google pointing at it.

Honest question, why was the decision made to file a complaint against Google instead of going to the website that published the story that sparked this whole thing? It's not like they were turning up these results in prejudice.

It's likely that Gonzalez thought (and rightly so) that it would be easier to bring the case against Google rather than taking on a news corporation. He's making it less about a matter of speech and more about a matter of marketing.

Who decides what is irrelevant or inadequate is the real problem. Also how do they plan on executing this? You can't ban the IP/address because they can and will be reused in the future. Do they want to ban a search phrase/result combo? How would you do that? Also how can you be sure people cannot get at it some other way?

They really needed to get rid of the source article, not the sign post leading to the article. Just why didn't they remove the article? Because clear the newspaper was involved.

Who decides what is irrelevant or inadequate is the real problem. Also how do they plan on executing this? You can't ban the IP/address because they can and will be reused in the future. Do they want to ban a search phrase/result combo? How would you do that? Also how can you be sure people cannot get at it some other way?

They really needed to get rid of the source article, not the sign post leading to the article. Just why didn't they remove the article? Because clear the newspaper was involved.

Google already has ways of filtering out specific URLs to comply with DMCA requests, so likely people would have to report individual URLs and they would be taken down via a similar system.

The news organization was sued as well, but the court ruled the information to have been accurate at the time it was published, so it was allowed to remain. For some reason, the court still finds fault with Google pointing at it.

The illogic required to draw this conclusion is just staggering.

I wonder if Google is within its rights to just block all searches for the name of any person or business who asks to have links removed? That would certainly prevent anyone from finding content they object to.

Not saying I agree with the court's ruling or anything, but it does make me wonder:

As regards existing privacy laws, how many of them were written without foreknowledge of a world in which anything anyone publishes about you- true or not- is remembered forever and can easily be found by anyone, anywhere that happens to know your name?

Obviously, making a search engine "forget" a resource doesn't make the resource stop existing. But is there any recourse at all for people like Gonzales? Should there be?

Seems to me, a lot of what constitutes "privacy" is based on the assumption of an individual's obscurity, the localization of publishing, and the impermanence of records. Well, the internet has killed those last two, so... have we come to a point in history where you'd better think twice about public life if you have a "Google problem?"

Many ideologies mistake the ideas of 'access',and 'publication' to be one and the same. Its tricky to converge the relationship of 'public access',to the actual orator (e.g.governments) given authority to make it so. Even then,'acess',is given only itenerate to which authority governing,or otherwise,has specific jurisdiction to do so. Then 'publication' is ,and can only be purposed by that authority. Thus in many cases,where by law,a 'record' is created - a participant is merely doing so as a prerequisite of the law intended governing body. Having directive to its own respective purpose. Most are said as 'acess'. And there is not actually a 'publish' right beyond the relationship the information is instilled. Either by law,or by something other than law. But most legitamate government records for example,only give 'acess' - or at least that is what is described by them of the laws creating them. It does not grant publication. And even though both effectually different in purpose - the creators of the 'record', cannot grant publication rights,or are doing so w/o law. Because the effected records/are represented by the consituency they are composed of. Or do so would suggest that there is designation beyond jurisdiction,that has not been contributive of a given authority to do so.

It is just easier to say that many do not recognize 'access',from 'publication',and are acting w/o law,or right to do so.

I don't like what some kids said to me in a prank call, so I'm going to sue the phone book company to have their number removed. This makes no sense.

Way to not get it. Now, if you want to make it accurate, you'd say you'd have your number removed. Oddly enough this is something that many people do every day. Hmm. I wonder why that is. Oh wait, I know. PRIVACY.

Not saying I agree with the court's ruling or anything, but it does make me wonder:As regards existing privacy laws, how many of them were written without foreknowledge of a world in which anything anyone publishes about you- true or not- is remembered forever and can easily be found by anyone, anywhere that happens to know your name?

Obviously, making a search engine "forget" a resource doesn't make the resource stop existing. But is there any recourse at all for people like Gonzales? Should there be?

Up until the last 15-20 years, the underlying state of the human condition was that, yes, you could walk away from your identity, be forgotten, and start anew. You don't have Don Drapers or Frank Abagnales in a world where everything is indexed and searchable, or at least it is much harder for such men to succeed at vanishing.

So the world has changed; does that make the baseline situation pre-Internet a "right"? There are good and bad aspects to both the pre-Internet baseline and post-Internet developing status quo. Humanity will figure it out, over the next 30-50 years, maybe.

To my understanding, on a technical level, this decision by the ECJ is completely unworkable. Down the road, the decision will be mocked for the impossible burden and stubbornness in the face of technological progress it creates.

Is there a valid point to wanting to preserve a right of privacy / of anonymity / to be forgotten? Yes, but I don't know if that is a reasonable expectation in the world that we are going to live in. Technology will continue to advance whether people like it or not, and someone is going to use the new technology, so the goal of laws should be to prevent and punish abuse of technology. Trying to intentionally cripple progress is counterproductive and ultimately futile.

Honest question, why was the decision made to file a complaint against Google instead of going to the website that published the story that sparked this whole thing? It's not like they were turning up these results in prejudice.

The thing that concerns me about this ruling is that it codifies something that was previously only a consequence of carrying information on physical media, namely paper. It's a lot harder to go rifle through old legal papers at some government building than it is to do a Google search, and as such, information such as this fellow's foreclosed house just naturally got lost to time. However, now that this tendency has been codified, it can be applied to *all* media, digital or otherwise. If this guy has a right to be forgotten does that mean that "inaccurate" and "irrelevant" piece of paper documenting his foreclosure should also be destroyed and/or no one should be allowed to see it? Should old newspapers that list the house for sale be culled? This sets a dangerous precedent because the courts now must explain how physical records are magically different from digital ones. The only meaningful difference is that digital records are easier to access.

I don't like what some kids said to me in a prank call, so I'm going to sue the phone book company to have their number removed. This makes no sense.

Way to not get it. Now, if you want to make it accurate, you'd say you'd have your number removed. Oddly enough this is something that many people do every day. Hmm. I wonder why that is. Oh wait, I know. PRIVACY.

This has nothing to do with privacy . Whatever google is liking to, is already public, that's why google is able to list it .

Honest question, why was the decision made to file a complaint against Google instead of going to the website that published the story that sparked this whole thing? It's not like they were turning up these results in prejudice.

Google has more money that whatever local paper or government agency posted the original article, might as well go for the big money while you're at it

This is a horrible ruling and will just create a legal prescedent to censor anything some will find offensive or "irrelevant", way to go EU, you must love your censorship

They didn't go after money, they went after an injunction to get the content removed from Google's search results. I tentatively think this is a good decision, but I cringe in thinking how one would effectively implement it.

This is one of those things that is perfectly sensible from a strictly legal standpoint while verging on impossibly unworkable from a technological standpoint.

Google is perfectly able, and does so on a daily basis, to remove links to content that infringes on trademark rights so I'm not worried about Google having to remove links to a private person.

Google is able to remove links to infringing material because a very powerful and very wealthy industry spends a tremendous amount of time and a tremendous amount of money on efficient methods of identifying and requesting those removals while Google spends a tremendous amount of time and money making sure they happen. Despite that tremendous investment of time and money on the part of all parties, content is frequently incorrectly identified and removed.

Is it really fair to Google to expect them to somehow maintain vast databases of what content on the entire internet is current and correct vs what is old and incorrect? I don't see how that's even possible.